+ 1st Reflection Paper - Outline

 13th April 2024 at 1:52pm

draft:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 1st Reflection Paper


Background

Topic

Aristoteles' idea about happiness

Keywords

Eudaimonia, the function argument, Virtue ethics, Reasoning, Summun Bonum,

First Half

related:: IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 1st Reflection Paper - First Half

Proposed Thesis

Aristoteles, in his seminal work Nicomacean Ethics, proposes that happiness (eudaimonia) is the highest good (summun bonum) which can be considered achieved by humans acting in a virtuous manner throughout their lives.

Introductory Paragraph

(establish the topic so the reader knows enough to follow the paper.)

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

Aristoteles, in his seminal work Nicomacean Ethics, proposes that the highest good (summun bonum) consists in a good life (eudaimonia) which is the end of all human endeavor. According to Aristoteles, a good life can be achieved by performing virtuous actions across a lifetime. This moral philosophy is known as Virtue Theory.

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. On the Goals of the Ends

related:: #

Main Point

Aristoteles begins by considering the purpose of human activities. , step by step, builds the initial argument that all human endeavor is undertaken for an end.

Support 1.

He states that actions are undertaken for a goal. For example, people work to have enough money to pay for essentials and so on. In other words, there is a sequence of goals that guide human actions. Therefore, there is an ultimate goal that guides all human actions (Aristoteles, 2011). ~~exemplifying that the goal of the shoemaker is to make shoes and of the general to win wars. ~~ He is of the idea that everything has a single function and being adept at performing that function is honorable. ~~This end however, is for another end. ~~

Topic Sentence II. On the Highest Good

related:: #

Main Point

Seeking the essence of this ultimate goal, or highest good, Aristoteles turns to his peers. There is a uniform agreement that a good life, eudaimonia, is such (Aristoteles, 2011). When taken to the absolute limit, the last end, Aristoteles claims, is a good life.

Support 1.

Eudaimonia, the good life, for Aristoteles, satisfies three conditions for the highest good. One, a good life is desired for its own sake; the end is itself. Two, all other things are desired for its sake; there are ends that come before it. Three, It's not desired for the sake of something else; there is no other end that follows. With this revelation, Aristoteles follows to discuss the good life. His view of a good life is based on the concept of Proper Functioning. It states all everything has a function, including humans. To have a good life, it is crucial for humans to perform their function.

Topic Sentence III. The Function Argument

related:: #

Main Point

Aristoteles believes that a good life consists in performing one's function virtuously across a lifetime.

~~While they can't agree on what consists a good life, Aristoteles does have an idea. ~~ Aristoteles states the proper function of a human is the use of reason. Specifically, reasoning that informs virtuous actions.

Support 1.

For humans, their function is to reason. Reasoning can be done virtuously when it informs actions across one's life. This means that, for Aristoteles, happiness can said to be achieved at the end of one's life when assessed by other people (Aristoteles, 2011). As an argument, Aristoteles says that "If the highest good(x) leads to a good life(y), and performing one's function(z) is the highest good(x). Then performing one's function(z) leads to a good life(y)." The rest of the books builds the moral theory based on virtue. Virtue is the Golden Mean between extremes, or vices of deficiency and excess. Aristoteles states that the virtuous action, the right thing to do, can be discovered through reason.

~~The concept of virtue is central. It is described as the Golden Mean between extremes, or vices. ~~

Conclusion

related:: #

Restate the main ideas of the thesis in your own words, and be sure to tie up loose ends.

To summarize, a good life for Aristoteles is achieved through virtue. Virtue is the midpoint between vices.

Second Half

related:: IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 1st Reflection Paper - Second Half

Proposed Thesis

Aristoteles' moral theory of Virtue Ethics is simplistic and does not take into account all the facets the human experience. In this second half, I propose an alternative moral theory which is more accessible to those that do not wish to participate in Aristoteles' rigid ethical arguments.

Introductory Paragraph

(establish the topic so the reader knows enough to follow the paper.)

The 21st century has been characterized by a rise in grassroot efforts to increase the quality of life of those marginalized in their respective societies. One common demand from these groups has been to address work discrimination in hiring process and the workplace. Work, both as an activity and a human endeavor takes up a large portion of people's lives. However, it is by no means the only sphere that comprises the human experience, nor is it the only productive one.

~~From LBGT+, disabled, POC, and neurodivergent people, ~~ ~~public spaces have become ~~ ~~accessibility to education, housing, and positions of power have become more available. ~~

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

Aristoteles' Function Argument which is the base of his moral theory of Virtue Ethics is not actionable. In this second half, I propose the alternative moral theory, Utilitarianism, as a way to achieve a good life.

which is more accessible to those that do not wish to participate in Aristoteles' rigid theory.

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. Objection to The Function Argument

While I support the intent behind the conclusion--that reasoning ought to inform our actions, I do not consider reasoning to be the function of a human in which our moral value rests.

Aristoteles' Function Argument rests in the comparison of "proper functioning" which he describes that as the shoemaker's function is to make shoes, the function of a human is to reason.

Main Point

Placing value on how well a person performs an action, just as the value of a shoemaker rests on the quality of their products diminishes the value of human life. He says that if "The highest good(x) leads to a good life(y), and performing one's function(z) is the highest good(x). Then performing one's function(z) leads to a good life(y)." ~~I object that the function of a human being is to reason and that they have a function. Instead, I propose that ~~

[!IMPORTANT] Function Argument (TRUE & VALID)

  1. The highest good(x) leads to a good life(y).
  2. Performing one's function(z) is the highest good(x). = Performing one's function(z) leads to a good life(y).

[!WARNING] Rebuttal to the Function Argument (TRUE & VALID)

  1. The highest good(x) leads to a good life(y).
  2. The greater good(z) is the highest good(x). = The greater good(z) leads to a good life(y).

~~Pondering about function doesn't change address an issue of higher importance. ~~ However, purpose can influence actions.

Support 1.

Work doesn't give value to people. People ought to neither live for work, not work to live. Furthermore, it makes "a good life" unavailable to a great deal of people, in particular those with few financial resources. This perspective on happiness causes a belief of deficiency and encourages material greed.

Choosing a purpose to live for reduces the cognitive dissonance and guides moral actions. No number of laws or punishment is going to change a person's mind. Belief, purposeful or not, in an indomitable force. It is that which society, government, nor reality can change. Perhaps, beliefs are the only things which are truly ours.

Topic Sentence II. Personal Thoughts on A Good Life
Main Point

I propose that a good life is both an achievable and sustainable goal.

~~Then, how can people have a good life? I believe that a good life is an multi-faceted and ever-changing state, independent from thought. ~~

Support 1.

This view takes into account a community instead of just an individual. In addition, it is not a psychological state, though reasoning can inform any actions to take that threaten a good life. Using Utilitarianism--a moral theory that aims to bring the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people (Crash Course, 2017)--there is a greater focus on interpersonal relationships, non-material well-being, and the pleasure and pain of those involved. Thus, a good life can be described as one of harmonious relations where people care about each other's well-being and are an active participant in the health of oneself, others, and the community as a whole. This can also extend to the well-being of other-than-human member such as pets and local wildlife, and even non-sentient beings like infrastructure.

1. Beliefs (x) influence our actions (y). (ex. beliefs are unshakable) [x= y] 2. Hope(z) is a belief(x). (ex. hope is a belief) [z=x] = Hope(z) influences our actions(y). [z=y]

1. Hope(x) influences our actions(y). ~2. The desire for a good life(z) is hope(x). ~~= The desire for a good life(z) influences our actions(y). ~~

= A good life consists in performing reasoning over time. (ex. hope is unshakable)

Reference

  • Reference page appropriate for the style (APA, MLA, etc.) you are using.
  1. Crash Course, 2017. Aristotle & Virtue Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #38 - https://youtu.be/PrvtOWEXDIQ?si=Lw-H4bZmffdOxRQ0. Accessed on January 23rd, 2024.
  2. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics: "Happiness" - https://youtu.be/cRS7plUcEtU?si=41g_MiaAUndT-GdQ. Accessed on January 23rd, 2024.
  3. Nicomachean Ethics
  4. Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36 - https://youtu.be/-a739VjqdSI?si=iozKJtNpTE-79XtM. Accessed on January 26th, 2024.

+ 2nd Reflection Paper - Outline

 12th April 2024 at 5:16pm

draft:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 2nd Reflection Paper


Background

Topic

  • Robert Nozick on Traces
  • Objections to arguments for permanence as quality of a meaningful life
  1. Humans are concrete objects
  2. Concrete objects perish.
  3. Human perish.

PERMANENCE

  1. A meaningful life is one that people remember long after their death.
  2. People that are remembered long after their deaths have made significant impact in the society.
  3. A meaningful life has to make a significant impact in society.

NOZICK

  1. For a human to not perish, they have to become an abstract object.
  2. To become an abstract object, a human has to become the representation of an idea.
  3. For a human to not perish, they have to become the representation of an idea.

1. For a human to become eternal, they're must not die (x is y). 2. For a human to not die, they have to become an idea (y is z). 3. For a human to become eternal, they must become an idea (x is z).

Keywords

Permanence, Unchanging, Ancient Greece, Abstract Object, Concrete Person, Traces

First Half

related:: IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 2nd Reflection Paper - First Half

Proposed Thesis

In this paper, I will explain the origin of the idea of the superiority of permanence, describe Nozick's objections against this idea, evaluate his argument, and offer my opinion on Nozick's argument.

In the article "Philosophy and the Meaning of Life," Robert Nozick critiques the argument of traces as a quality of a meaningful life.

Introductory Paragraph

(establish the topic so the reader knows enough to follow the paper.)

"Ever-lasting", "immortalizing", "larger than life", these words evoke a feeling of grandiose. A romantic struggle to rise above the fragility and temporality of human existence to achieve something close to god(dess)hood. The narrative of rising above one's limitations is coated with admiration, hope, and other virtues. At its core it's the promise of immortality, at least among our peers, but a possibility of extending life longer than it's inevitable end nevertheless. Where did this value judgement originate, and what are its downsides?

~~this concept originate, and how did it become intertwined with the meaning of life? ~~

Humans' relationship with death is . In the Western sphere, one measure of success is the measure of one's impact after death.

~~Humans' relationship with death is complex and dense, varying from culture across millennia. ~~ From rituals to philosophy, the relationship is loaded with material and immaterial symbolism.

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

In this paper, I will explain the origin of the idea of the superiority of permanence, describe Nozick's objections against this idea, evaluate his argument, and offer my opinion on Nozick's argument.

In the article "Philosophy and the Meaning of Life," Robert Nozick critiques the argument of traces as a quality of a meaningful life.

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. Permanence as a Quality of a Meaningful Life
Main Point

The superiority of permanence dates back to Ancient Greece. Plato famously argued for entities called Forms which are eternal and unchanging (2022, Kraut).

Support 1.

These Forms were deemed superior to concrete objects because the latter eventually crumble into dust. Forms are another word for ideas, both concrete and abstract, such as a chair, Justice, Love, an apple, and so forth. These forms are immaterial which renders them indestructible. Because of this seemly immortal quality, they are superior to objects that can be sensed, death comes for all living things but the transmission of ideas and beliefs across generations keeps them alive. Since then, this value judgement has been applied to human existence, morphing into the belief that a meaningful life is one that leaves a significant trace in the world.

Topic Sentence II. Against Permanence (1)
Main Point

In the article "Philosophy and the Meaning of Life," Robert Nozick critiques this value judgement.

Nozick objects to the idea that leaving a mark in the world is part of what makes life meaningful.

Support 1.

He hones into what entails to being eternal, becoming an idea; an abstract, unchangeable existence (2010, Benatar). Nozick believes this isn't the trace people want to leave. A trace that reflects the positive qualities of the individual which is tied to something they cared deeply about (2010, Benatar). For Nozick, becoming an idea means taking a snapshot of a person's life and freeze it for all eternity.

Topic Sentence III. Against Permanence (2)
Main Point

One way Nozick develops his objection is by critiquing funeral services.

the notion of living through descendants.

Support 1.

Specifically, he argues about tombstones and funeral orators. On the former, he describes tombstones are memorials that prevent people from being forgotten. A marked tombstone indicates the life that is not more, an objective symbol of that person's existence. Until that tombstone breaks, crumbles, or becomes illegible, the person's existence can be acknowledged by someone who isn't the deceased, thereby perpetuating their existence by memory alone. On the latter, he berates the hypocrisy of the orators of trying to immortalize the deceased.

~~On the latter, ~~ He argues that seeking immortality through this manner is neither an objective--where other people will be aware of their existence--nor subjective--they believe it will make an continuous impact on the world--attempt to achieve immortality. In both cases, the chain of descendants may one day end. Nozick thinks that people who partake in this idea believe that extended mortality is better than none (2010, Benatar).

Second Half

related:: IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 2nd Reflection Paper - Second Half

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

Nozick's objections to permanence as a quality of a meaningful life misinterpret Plato's concept of Forms.

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. Evaluating Nozick's argument
Main Point

Nozick's main conclusion, that to become eternal a human must become unchangeable, is incorrect.

Support 1.

If equating permeance to an idea, then it is false to say that ideas are unchangeable. Ideas do change. That is how they live on. They are subject to evolution which is linked to their survival. No idea, even the most hateful, hasn't been adapted by people to the times they lived in. It is because ideas are abstract that, just like people, are mutable. What people lose when becoming immortalized isn't the capacity to change but to change in their own terms. By becoming an abstract object, the cede control of this new form their lives has taken to those that remain in this world.

~~It implies that the person's life will be passed down through one single moment or stage of their life. However, he doesn't develop the claim, and the reader is left with filling the implications of acquiring an eternal existence. ~~

Topic Sentence II. In Support of Nozick's Argument
Main Point

I agree with Nozick's criticism to permanence as the meaning of life, for in the Western sphere, such an endeavor can inflate the ego and encourage a single-minded pursuit of a result that cannot be measured by the individual.

~~I believe than in the Western sphere, the mindset of achieving godhood is prevalent, if not at least alive. ~~

Nozick touches on some of these narratives of cheating death and becoming immortal.

~~The story has been more or less that since Ancient Greece, Plato's time, the concept of the Form (Ideas) were unchanging and thus were more valuable than other things that changed and turned into dust. Like the saying goes, "you can kill a man but not the Idea he stands for." The quality of impermanence is thus exalted. Things worthy of living on are somehow better than those which are forgotten. ~~

~~Survival of the fittest can be seen in Survivor's Guilt and Survivor Bias. The former is a person's response to a traumatic event and the latter is the assumption that what has survived the "test of time" is better than what hasn't. ~~

~~For example, the loss of the history and culture of the societies that lived during the time of European settlement and subsequent colonization of the the American continent. In other words, it's a situation where "might makes right." This narrative is incorrect. The genocide of indigenous peoples wasn't due to the supposed inherent superiority of the colonizers. The products of marketing don't have an ethical dimension. It is not a factor in the result of acquiring popularity but of much more complex interactions. ~~

Support 1.

I am critical of such a pursuit of a meaningful life for what people are capable of doing with those that have become an abstract idea. Those that have been immortalized are commonly used for political purposes, some of which cared for only acquiring and holding onto power. By deifying a person, they paint them in a positive light, which by proxy of having them as a symbol, paints a political groups as good, leaving no room for criticism, change, nor improvement.

Reference

  • Reference page appropriate for the style (APA, MLA, etc.) you are using.
  1. Kraut, R. 2022. Plato (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Accessed on: February 21st, 2024. Link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/#PlaCenDoc.
  2. Benatar, D. 2010. "Life, Death, and Meaning: Key Philosophical Readings on the Big Questions."

+ 3rd Reflection Paper - Outline

 12th April 2024 at 5:23pm

draft:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 3rd Reflection Paper


Background

Topic

Theories of well-being, Hedonism.

  1. Explain the theory

  2. Pose an objection

  3. Present a reply to that objection

  4. Well-being consists of balancing the pleasant sensation of pleasure and the painful experience of pain (Crisp). 'greatest balance of pleasure and pain.'

  5. How can you hope to control a sensation which is so elusive? (paradox of hedonism)

  6. Well, I accept that pleasure is a fickle thing, however, from the rare moments, say the 10% of experiences where pleasure was unintentionally obtained from an action, then where's the contradiction if well-being is an indirect, sometimes unsuccessful pursuit? On the other hand, there are many experiences which are unpleasant on the short-term but pleasant for longer much after that. I claim that the theory's greatest strength is the quest for balance of the sensations, not the chase of one of them (pleasure).

Keywords

hedonism, well-being, pleasure, philosophy, critical thinking.

Proposed Thesis

In this paper, I will explore Hedonism as a theory for well-being through a succinct explanation, pose an objection, and reply to it.

Outline

Introductory Paragraph

(establish the topic so the reader knows enough to follow the paper.)

Philosophical discourse on well-being stems from the question of what is 'good for' a person. In this paper, I will present the Hedonist theory of well-being, pose an objection, and reply to that objection.

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. Hedonism Theory

related:: IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 3rd Reflection Paper - Paragraph 1

Main Point

The Hedonist Theory of well-being centers around the sensations of pleasure and pain, claiming that what's good for a person is seeking balance of both sensations across their life.

~~In that infertile field, three major hedonist theorist devised an ethical theory where pleasure is the highest good, and the best pleasure is the one that benefitted the greatest number of people. ~~

In relation to well-being, the hedonism view, while it has some variables, can be summarized as the balancing of the pleasant sensation of pleasure and the painful experience of pain (Crisp). In layman terms, what's good for a person is what feels good. Further questions about pleasure itself can be asked but they are outside the scope of this paper.

consider pleasure to be below human superiority.

The Hedonist theory of well-being claims that well-being consists in the greatest balance of pleasure over pain.

is closely related to the claims, which is most commonly known from Utilitarianims, or Bentham, James Stuart Mill and John S. M.,

Support 1.

Hedonist theories claim that the sensation of pleasure is a measure of well-being, and the sensation of pain is a measure of ill-being. Thus, what feels good (pleasure) is good for the person (Crisp, 2021).

Despite its apparent intuitiveness, this theory has been the subject of harsh criticism since its inception. Early objections rejected pleasure as a measure of, well anything, on the grounds that it belonged to beasts, and humans were above pleasure as a path towards ultimate happiness. Whereas the following objection aims to reveal the complexity of this seemly accessible theory.

Topic Sentence II. Objection to Hedonism Theory

related::IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 3rd Reflection Paper - Paragraph 2

[!IMPORTANT] Paradox of Hedonism

  1. Pleasure is only ever a result from getting desired objects
  2. There can only be successful pursuit of something if that thing is more than just a result of getting a desired object
  3. There can be no successful pursuit of pleasure.
Main Point

One well-known objection against the Hedonist Theory is the Paradox of Hedonism coined by Henry Sidgwich in 1854.

Support 1.

It states that the pursuit of pleasure is always fruitless because pleasure is always the result of getting something else. In other words, pleasure is never a direct result but an indirect one. It is elusive. So, how can pleasure be what's good for a person if they can never obtain it?

Topic Sentence III. Response to Objection

related:: IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 3rd Reflection Paper - Paragraph 3

Main Point

The Paradox of Hedonism reveals that pleasure is an indirect result of unrelated events, however, pleasure is not the only element in the hedonist theory.

Support 1.

If the paradox is correct, it has no bearing in the intent behind the hedonist theory to balance pleasure and pain. At most, it shows that pleasure is impossible to obtain intentionally, but that is just a single lane that has been closed, not the whole road. To put it simply, the methods behind the quest for pleasure and their respective success are unrelated to efforts to balance pleasure and pain.

For example, a professional biker falls over and scrapes their leg. The wound burns. The next logical step would be to apply first aid to the wound as soon as possible. However, even if the wound has been nursed, it may still hurt.

In hedonist terms, the biker took measures to reduce pain through applying first aid. While pleasure was neither sought nor obtained, pain was diminished but not wholly removed. Thus, while pleasure was neither a direct not indirect result, the effort to control the pain is good for that person.

Conclusion

Restate the main ideas of the thesis in your own words, and be sure to tie up loose ends.

related::IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 3rd Reflection Paper - Conclusion

It seems that the Paradox of Hedonism may be useful to advance discussions on the nature of pleasure as a measure of well-being. Devising different methods that result in pleasure and/or the reduction of pain is outside the scope of philosophy. However, hedonist theorists may benefit to further consider why pleasure is most successfully obtained through indirect means.

  • Reference page appropriate for the style (APA, MLA, etc.) you are using.

+ Documentation

 13th April 2024 at 3:26pm

Stage 1. Draft written in Obsidian [MD]

  • All written text, bidirectional links and overall structure (topics and subtopics; file organization).

Tools

  • Obsidian: metadata (YAML), bi-directional links
  • Markdown language: content creation (headers, quotes, linking, etc)
  • GitHub Desktop: Public GitHub repo for version control + cloud saving
    • "md-vault" branch
  • Basic knowledge of Git: manipulate GitHub Desktop (creating repo, making commits, pushing, merging branches)

Stage 2. Online version created with Stroll [HTML]

  • Run locally on Chrome browser.

    • File saving system had to be divided between a private Github Repo and local downloads.
      • The private repo for online saving.
      • Local downloads are just as the tin says; a lot of files (versions) were created. Does not rely on internet.
  • .md imported and edited to adapt to software.

    • Tags in Stroll/TiddlyWiki also work as dropdown. "up:: [[TiddlerName]]" that repeated the tag directly above were removed.
      • Ex. all Discussion Notes and authors.
  • Only the Outlines and Drafts of the reflection papers are easily accessible through the Contents pane. The parts of each draft aren't.

  • All Markdown(MD) titles (# title) inside the content of all tiddlers seemed repetitive and were removed.

  • OBD transclusion syntax had to be replaced with its TiddlyWiki counterpart.

    • Click on the pencil symbol at the top right of any draft. Syntax {{Tiddler Name}} displays that tiddler.

Tools

  • Stroll + TiddlyWiki(TW) (.html): software you're using right now.
  • GitHub Desktop: Private GitHub Repo for automatic cloud saving local working copy of HTML file (aka the Tiddlywiki project). See ("GitHub Saver" from Control Panel).
    • Requires key, target repo, target branch, and name file (opt.)

Important Plugins & Themes

  • Stroll: Buffs up TW with bi-directional linking and a couple other things. (the former being the most used feature here.)
  • Relink: Updates name of a tiddler in all tiddlers it's mentioned.
  • Markdown: Allows extensive use of MD, removing need to change a lot of syntax from the OG file format (eg. MD).
  • "Notebook" theme: improves visibility of content and is mobile-friendly.
    • Downside is that two-river feature from Stroll doesn't work very well :(.

Stage 3. Deployed through GithubPages (gh-pages branch) [HTML]

  • Directly exported through native file's export function (Table of Contents > Tools > export all tiddlers) as "index.html."
  • This project was intended to run as a static website, but none of the files are being used (See "Next Steps").

Tools

Next Steps

  • Display PDFs from $:/Import and import tiddlers in the respective Discussion Notes.
  • Implement Netlify, Jekyll for static website generation and management. See GithubPages as a jumping point.

+ Start Here

 13th April 2024 at 3:20pm

This is the homepage for the Spring 2024 course, IDH3600 - Happiness and The Meaning of Life digital garden. An online version of this garden might be available here if the author had time to prepare one outside of Obsidian. Think of it like Wikipedia. There is no traced path. You are free to explore between the pages at your leisure.

To begin exploring the main topics of this course, go to Happiness or Meaning of Life. For a discussion on the intersection between the two, go to Happiness and The Meaning of Life.

Tip: Use "Shift" key + click on any page to create two-rivers of tiddlers and read two of them side-by-side! Only works with themes other than Notebook.

About the Course

We examined various key philosophical writings on Happiness and the Meaning of Life. Course assignments ranged from notes from readings, class discussions, and four reflection papers. Discussion Notes on the readings for a given class were due the night before so that class discussions function as a place to clarify understanding, or share thoughts and ideas. Each Reflection Paper focused on a different author or view recently addressed in class.


For an introduction on digital gardens, read Maggie Appleton's A Brief History & Ethos of the Digital Garden and dive deeper with these resources. Obsidian folder system heavily inspired by Linking Your Thinking.

Arguments For and Against Subjective and Objective Views on Value

 12th April 2024 at 3:41pm

up:: Wolf Discussion Notes

Pitui, pitui. Here's a list of ideas to build arguments on subjective and objectives views of value.

First, some definitions.

Subjective Value.- "a thing's good is dependent solely on what a(n) agent(s) think about it." Includes intersubjectivity.

Objective value.- Good is dictated by something other than a(n) agent.

Subjective Objective
Nuance Essentials for living (food)
Adaptability Too negative to allow (murder)
Growth mindset Value can be found across species (empathy, love, care)
Who is the judge of objective value? Unifying factor of human cultures across time and space (beauty, health, etc)

Aristoteles

 12th April 2024 at 4:14pm

His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciencesphilosophylinguisticseconomicspoliticspsychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science. — Wikipedia

In the book Nicomacean Ethics, built the The Function Argument. Used as a base for his moral theory, Virtue Ethics.

Aristoteles - Nicomacean Ethics.pdf

 

Aristoteles Discussion Notes

 13th April 2024 at 1:35pm

Prompt: What, in your own words, does it mean for something to be "the best good" (p. 2)?

Pre-reading

For me, the best good is what benefits the greatest number of sentient beings. In other words, a utilitarian approach.

Post-reading

Aristoteles comes to the conclusion that, "human good turns out to be activity of the soul in accord with virtue and, if there are more virtues than one, the in accord with the best and most complete."

In scrutiny, this definition is pretty vague. As he previously alluded, humans are limited in knowledge and experience. What one thinks is good may not be what other does. There is no universality to it.

In relation to politics, the Western politics of human progress, hasn't the quest for wealth & comfort what has brought the environmental crisis we now face? That by choosing short-term pleasure instead of long-term stability, one take opportunities and resources from those that will come after.

Post-Discussion Notes

Terminology

First things first, there's some terminology we need to be clear on.

  • The happiness Aristoteles discusses isn't anywhere near the psychological state but an objective view. Heck, it's not even an accurate translation. The word he uses is Eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία) which is a compound word of "good"(εὐ) and "spirit"(δαιμονία). Thus, eudaimonia, the translation I prefer, is "a good life." So, Aristoteles argument on happiness is more accurately translated to how to achieve a good life.
  • Proper functioning. This was a widely held belief at the time which Aristoteles also participated on. Proper functioning gives a single function to everything that exists in the world. Flowers, trees, animals, and even people. This belief is central to Aristoteles' Function Argument that supports his view on how to achieve a good life.
  • Virtue. This concept was also popular in that time. Virtue is a personal characteristic that is worth of admiration and social support. Virtuous actions are intrinsically good. Thus, they should be what people aim for, to become virtuous in the eyes of their peers.
    • In the book, Aristoteles describes virtue as the Golden Mean between vices of deficiency and excess.

A couple of other concept to analyze philosophical arguments:

  • Validity: Evaluates the logical conclusion that must follows the premises.
  • Soundness: Considers real life to evaluate the truth of the premises and conclusion.

The Function Argument

Here's Aristoteles main argument which is both true and valid.

[!IMPORTANT] Function Argument (TRUE & VALID)

  1. The highest good(x) leads to a good life(y).
  2. Performing one's function(z) is the highest good(x). = Performing one's function(z) leads to a good life(y).
Analysis

Let's unpack this.

  • First premise: The highest good(x) leads to a good life(y).
    • "Highest good" refers to the end of all ends. The ultimate goal of all human endeavor. It's the reason we do everything. Aristoteles seeks the form of the highest good. What is the the ultimate goal for which people do things? Aristoteles argues that it must have three qualities
      • One, it is desired for its own sake; the end is itself.
      • Two, all other things are desired for its sake; there are ends that come before it.
      • Three, It's not desired for the sake of something else; there is no other end that follows.
    • By popular opinion, "a good life." satisfies the three conditions.
    • Thus, Aristoteles safely concludes that the highest good (summun bonum) is a good life (εὐδαιμονία).
  • Second premise: Performing one's function(z) is the highest good(x).
    • Here's where the concept of proper functioning comes into play. The background behind this belief is outside the scope of this analysis. It is sufficient to understand that the Greeks believed that doing what one does best is the best possible thing one can do. This idea was applied to humanity as a whole. The function of humans, according to Aristoteles, the thing they can do that no other living thing is capable of is to Reason. Thus, reasoning is the best things people can do because it is what they do best.
  • Conclusion: Performing one's function(z) leads to a good life(y).
    • It stands to reason that because doing what one does best leads to a positive outcome, and the best possible outcome is a good life. Then, people can reason their way to a good life. However, Aristoteles wasn't proposing a The Thinker sort of path to happiness.
    • The reasoning that people had to perform was a way to inform their everyday actions which had to be virtuous (aka good). In addition, these virtuous action had to be performed across an entire lifetime. But for a person to be considered truly happy, their life had to have ended to analyze their action because only then there would be no more data to consider. Thus, alive and living a good life were separate states.

Discussion

  • Logical argument? Yes. Useful? Not really. Why strive to live "a good life" when one has no power over its achievement? From the conclusion onwards, it becomes easier to disagree with Aristoteles.
  • When held to scrutiny, there is one common object to his premises as well. The second premises argues that the function, the sole one, what people do uniquely, is the possession and use of reason. There is plenty of evidence that disagrees that humans are the only species with the capacity to reason. Furthermore, proper functioning rest moral value of a whole specie to the quality in which they perform their function. Thus, a person can be said to be bad if they do not reason "right". But what they heck does that even mean? How does Aristoteles qualifies this? Virtue Ethics, which Aristoteles proposes to be the way people can perform virtuous actions, isn't a consequential moral theory. Virtuous actions are specific to their situation and Aristoteles doesn't bother to explain further. While I agree that there is sort of a "universal moral law" inside everyone, his take it too vague to be actionable.
  • While not in his argument, later in the book, Aristoteles states that apart from reasoning, external good are required to achieve a good life (which isn't really achievable with the whole death thing). Some of these external goods are wealth, honor, and relationships and he also has a dated perspective on these.

References

  1. Nicomacean Ethics; Book I Aristoteles - Nicomacean Ethics.pdf

Atlas

 12th April 2024 at 12:04am

Contents

 11th April 2024 at 11:28pm

Daniel Gilbert

 12th April 2024 at 4:04pm

He is the author of the international bestseller Stumbling on Happiness, which has been translated into more than 30 languages and won the 2007 Royal Society Prizes for Science Books. He has also written essays for several newspapers and magazines, hosted a non-fiction television series on PBS, and given three popular TED talks. — Wikipedia

Daniel Gilbert - Stumbling on Happiness CH4.pdf

 

Desire Fulfillment Theory

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Theory of Well-being. States that happiness can be achieved by obtaining what one desires. This is an umbrella term for several different interpretations which include but not limited to the Comprehensive Desire theory, Global Desire Theory, and the Summary Desire Theory.


Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404082235

References

  • see also:: #
  • source:: # or #

Discussion Notes

 12th April 2024 at 4:20pm

Discussion of Bruckner

 12th April 2024 at 4:16pm

Does the Theory of Well-being Bruckner defends in this essay include the effects of the "health," "well-being," or "sustained life" of beings other than the subject which the subject's well-being--knowingly or unknowingly--depend on?

Discussion of Csikszentmihalyi

 13th April 2024 at 1:32pm

Do you agree with any of Csikszentmihalyi's points? Do you disagree with any? Which ones and why?

I agree with the existence of flow as I have experienced it countless times whether it is writing or doing anything creative. I also agree that those kinds of experiences, their complexity, are much more satisfying in the long-run compared to endeavors like the accumulation of wealth. Being up to the task of what is demanded of one is comforting, although I believe the struggle of learning and developing skills is just as important. Perhaps being ill-fitted aka not having the knowledge, skills, or time to fulfill a task to a standard is a frustrating experience.

Reference

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi - If We're So Rich, Why Aren't We Happy.pdf

Discussion of Flanagan et al.

 12th April 2024 at 4:17pm

Please select a passage from "Against Happiness" for us to discuss in class and prepare a comment on it for in-class discussion.

"For researchers to assume a particular theory of happiness or well-being
without acknowledging that they are taking a stand on contested
matters is not best practice, especially when addressing nonexperts who aren’t aware of the controversies and may thus be misled about what the evidence shows."

I chose this passage because it states that there are a lot of controversies about happiness and well-being among experts (ex. philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, etc) which are important to communicate to non-experts (ex. policymakers, the public, etc). It is important because giving the impression that there is a single or a right theory of well-being is misleading and may have negative consequences. It is also disinformation and I can't support for that.

Discussion of Gilbert's_In the Blind Spot of the Mind's Eye

 13th April 2024 at 1:36pm

Please select a passage from Gilbert's "In the Blind Spot of the Mind's Eye for us to discuss in class and prepare a comment on it for in-class discussion.

"your mistake was in unthinkingly treating what you imagined as though it were an accurate representation of the facts."

I think this phrase sums up Gilbert's argument in this chapter. To expand on it, Gilbert is dissecting the experience of using past experiences to inform decisions about the future by honing into results from various experiments where people's current perceptions of a past event are completely different from the actual experience and initial judgements. This is the blind spot of the mind's eye. There is something lacking when we perceive the world, a blind spot, and we incorrectly assume that such faulty judgement holds any sort of truth. I find that this argument of isn't ground-breaking for I find that it holds relation to the philosophy of Stoicism. I have also been thinking about the concept of narratives and how in my own life and those of others narrate past events and how as time passes, the narrative changes. Without putting pen into paper, the story of our lives can be told in so many different ways and without evidence, there is no way to examine them nor to conclude that one is more accurate than another. In relation to happiness, if Gilbert's argument is true and our perceptions of the world are inaccurate, then how is any endeavors to achieve happiness be anything but misguided?

References

Daniel Gilbert - Stumbling on Happiness CH4.pdf

Discussion of Gilbert's_Paradise Glossed and Immune to Reality

 12th April 2024 at 4:18pm

Please select a passage from Gilbert's "Paradise Glossed" or "Immune to Reality" for us to discuss in class and prepare a comment on it for in-class discussion.

If heartbreaks and calamities can be blessings in disguise, then why are their disguises so convincing? The answer is that the human mind tends
to exploit ambiguity."

Continuing on the theme of the human mind being fickle and easily tricked, this reading focuses on how ambiguity, both situational and contextual can serve different purposes which a person knows none. To experiencing the bliss of ignorance or the boredom of knowledge, even seemly, is but a trick of the mind. People are ignorant, but many also have a strong thirst for knowledge. Quenching that thirst through the acquisition of knowledge is either temporal or misguided for people cannot learn the state of the world and any piece of knowledge brings a thousand more questions. It is an eternal endeavor which the span of a single human life cannot achieve.

Discussion of I Heart Huckabees

 12th April 2024 at 4:18pm

Please post your discussion question for discussion of I Heart Huckabees and say a bit about why you're asking it.

The motivation of the main character to visit the Existential detectives was to find the reason he saw the same person in three different locations. He believed there had to a meaningful reason and several other character have their own take on the topic. Having finished the movie, do you think the inciting incident was meaningful, that it had a cosmic reason to happen, at all?

Discussion of Nozick

 13th April 2024 at 1:34pm

Prompt: Pose one objection or challenge to one of Nozick's arguments.

I would argue against the role of humans in God's Plan being central or having any degree of importance. I think it would be interesting to explore other narratives and examine anthropocentric ones that put humans above other-than-human beings.

References

Robert Nozick - Philosophy and the Meaning of Life.pdf

Discussion of Parfit

 12th April 2024 at 4:18pm

I'm not sure I understand the topic Parfit is talking about. Between "self-interest" and "making one's life go best" the former seems more concrete while the latter sounds vague and he doesn't describe the topic any further to clarify the focus of the essay.

Draft of 'Susan Wolf'

 12th April 2024 at 4:05pm

DRAFT_IDH3600 - 1st Reflection Paper

 12th April 2024 at 4:59pm
  • In roughly the first half of the paper, you should:
    • Explain what Aristotle means by the "highest good."
    • Explain Aristotle's function argument.
    • You should include some textual evidence (in the form of quotations from Aristotle), and also explanations from class and your own words.
  • In roughly the second half of the paper, you should:
    • Evaluate Aristotle's function argument—Pose an objection to it, explain how that objection works; if space allows, say whether and how that objection fails or succeeds. Can Aristotle respond?
    • Tell me what you personally think and why—Do you agree with Aristotle? Why or why not?

First Half

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 1st Reflection Paper

Introductory Paragraph

Hope is the fuel of the human spirit. Hope for a better future, hope for a better life. However, what is the form of the dream behind the desire for positive change that drives human migration and social revolutions? The roots of this ideal, as many others, are found in Ancient times. In the Western world, much of that influence stems from Ancient Greece and its colorful cast of thinkers. Among them, Aristoteles thought and wrote extensively on the subject.

Thesis

Aristoteles, in his seminal work Nicomacean Ethics, proposes that the highest good (summun bonum) consists in a good life (eudaimonia) which is the end of all human endeavor. He argues that a good life can be achieved by performing virtuous actions across a lifetime. This moral philosophy is known as Virtue Theory.

Topic Sentence I. On the Goals of the Ends

Main Point

Aristoteles begins by considering the purpose of human activities.

Support

He states that actions are undertaken for a goal. For example, people work to have enough money to pay for essentials and so on. In other words, there is a sequence of goals that guide human actions. Therefore, there is an ultimate goal that guides all human actions (Aristoteles, 2011).

Topic Sentence II. On the Highest Good

Main Point

Seeking the essence of this ultimate goal, or highest good, Aristoteles turns to his peers. There is a uniform agreement that a good life, eudaimonia, is such (Aristoteles, 2011).

Support

Eudaimonia, the good life, for Aristoteles, satisfies three conditions for the highest good. One, a good life is desired for its own sake; the end is itself. Two, all other things are desired for its sake; there are ends that come before it. Three, It's not desired for the sake of something else; there is no other end that follows. With this revelation, Aristoteles follows to discuss the good life.

Topic Sentence III. The Function Argument

Main Point

Aristoteles believes that a good life consists in performing one's function virtuously across a lifetime.

Support

He asserts that the function of a human is to reason, and it has to be done virtuously so that it informs the actions throughout one's life. This implies that, happiness is achieved after death if others conclude so (Aristoteles, 2011). Formed as an argument, Aristoteles says that "If the highest good(x) leads to a good life(y), and performing one's function(z) is the highest good(x), then performing one's function(z) leads to a good life(y)." The rest of the books builds the moral theory based on the concept of virtue. Virtue is the Golden Mean between extremes of deficiency and excess. Aristoteles states that the virtuous action between the extremes can be discovered through reason.

SecondHalf

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 1st Reflection Paper

Thesis

Aristoteles' Function Argument limits the value of human life to the capacity to perform a specific function. In this second half, I propose one objection and propose an alternative way to achieve a good life.

Topic Sentence I. Objection to The Function Argument

While I support the intent behind the conclusion--that reasoning ought to inform our actions, I do not consider reasoning to be the function of a human in which their moral value rests.

Main Point

Arguing that the value of a shoemaker rests on the quality of their products diminishes their life.

Support 1.

Work doesn't give value to people. People ought to neither live for work, not work to live. Furthermore, this argument makes "a good life" unavailable to a great deal of people, in particular those with few financial resources. This perspective encourages a thoughts of deficiency and elevates material greed.

Topic Sentence II. Personal Thoughts on A Good Life

Main Point

Thus, I propose that a good life is both an achievable and sustainable goal.

Support 1.

A good life ought to take into account the community. In addition, it cannot be a psychological state, for people are prone to errors in judgement. Through Utilitarianism--a moral theory that aims to bring the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people (Crash Course, 2017)--a good life become an objective judgement that values interpersonal relationships, non-material well-being, and the pleasure and pain of those involved.

Thus, a good life could be one of harmonious relations where people care about each other's well-being and are an active participants in the health of oneself, others, and the community. This can also extend to the well-being of other-than-human members such as pets and local wildlife, and even non-sentient beings like infrastructure.

DRAFT_IDH3600 - 2nd Reflection Paper

 12th April 2024 at 5:02pm

"It is difficult to discover why the more permanent is the more valuable or meaningful, why permanence or long-lastingness, why duration in itself, should be important" (56); Nozick is arguing against the view that permanence would make our lives meaningful.

  • In roughly the first half of the paper, you should:
    • Explain the argument Nozick is arguing against.
    • Explain Nozick's objections to that argument, and how that objection works.
    • Explain a further argument Nozick makes.
      • You should include some textual evidence (in the form of quotations), and also explanations in your own words.
  • In roughly the second half of the paper, you should:
    • Evaluate Nozick's argument(s)—Pose an objection, explain how that objection works; if space allows, say whether and how that objection fails or succeeds. Can Nozick respond?
    • Tell me what you personally think and why—Do you agree with Nozick? Why or why not?

First Half

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 2nd Reflection Paper

Introductory Paragraph

(establish the topic so the reader knows enough to follow the paper.)

"Ever-lasting", "immortalizing", "larger than life", these words evoke a feeling of grandiose. A romantic struggle to rise above the fragility and temporality of human existence to achieve something close to god(dess)hood. The narrative of rising above one's limitations is coated with admiration, hope, and other virtues. At its core it's the promise of immortality, at least among our peers, but a possibility of extending life longer than it's inevitable end nevertheless. Where did this value judgement originate, and what are its downsides?

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

In this paper, I will explain the origin of the idea of the superiority of permanence, describe Nozick's objections against this idea, evaluate his argument, and offer my opinion on Nozick's argument.

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. Permanence as a Quality of a Meaningful Life
Main Point

The superiority of permanence dates back to Ancient Greece. Plato famously argued for entities called Forms which are eternal and unchanging (2022, Kraut).

Support 1.

These Forms were deemed superior to concrete objects because the latter eventually crumble into dust. Forms are another word for ideas, both concrete and abstract, such as a chair, Justice, Love, an apple, and so forth. These forms are immaterial which renders them indestructible. Because of this seemly immortal quality, they are superior to objects that can be sensed, death comes for all living things but the transmission of ideas and beliefs across generations keeps them alive. Since then, this value judgement has been applied to human existence, morphing into the belief that a meaningful life is one that leaves a significant trace in the world.

Topic Sentence II. Against Permanence (1)
Main Point

In the article "Philosophy and the Meaning of Life," Robert Nozick critiques this value judgement.

Support 1.

He hones into what entails to being eternal, becoming an idea; an abstract, unchangeable existence (2010, Benatar). Nozick believes this isn't the trace people want to leave. A trace that reflects the positive qualities of the individual which is tied to something they cared deeply about (2010, Benatar). For Nozick, becoming an idea means taking a snapshot of a person's life and freeze it for all eternity.

Topic Sentence III. Against Permanence (2)
Main Point

One way Nozick develops his objection is by critiquing funeral services.

Support 1.

Specifically, he argues about tombstones and funeral orators. On the former, he describes tombstones are memorials that prevent people from being forgotten. A marked tombstone indicates the life that is not more, an objective symbol of that person's existence. Until that tombstone breaks, crumbles, or becomes illegible, the person's existence can be acknowledged by someone who isn't the deceased, thereby perpetuating their existence by memory alone.

Second Half

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 2nd Reflection Paper

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

Nozick's objections to permanence as a quality of a meaningful life misinterpret Plato's concept of Forms.

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. Evaluating Nozick's argument
Main Point

Nozick's main conclusion, that to become eternal a human must become unchangeable, is incorrect.

Support 1.

If equating permeance to an idea, then it is false to say that ideas are unchangeable. Ideas do change. That is how they live on. They are subject to evolution which is linked to their survival. No idea, even the most hateful, hasn't been adapted by people to the times they lived in. It is because ideas are abstract that, just like people, are mutable. What people lose when becoming immortalized isn't the capacity to change but to change in their own terms. By becoming an abstract object, the cede control of this new form their lives has taken to those that remain in this world.

Topic Sentence II. In Support of Nozick's Argument
Main Point

I agree with Nozick's criticism to permanence as the meaning of life, for in the Western sphere, such an endeavor can inflate the ego and encourage a single-minded pursuit of a result that cannot be measured by the individual.

Support 1.

I am critical of such a pursuit of a meaningful life for what people are capable of doing with those that have become an abstract idea. Those that have been immortalized are commonly used for political purposes, some of which cared for only acquiring and holding onto power. By deifying a person, they paint them in a positive light, which by proxy of having them as a symbol, paints a political groups as good, leaving no room for criticism, change, nor improvement.

DRAFT_IDH3600 - 3rd Reflection Paper

 12th April 2024 at 5:19pm
  • Philosophical conceptions of happiness as well-being. We've discussed three theories: hedonism, the desire fulfillment theory, and the objective list theory.
  • Defend the theory that you think is right (or most right).
    • Explain the theory accurately and in detail.
    • Pose an objection to the theory and explain how that objection is supposed to work.
    • Respond to that objection and shows how it fails.
    • End with any reflections, questions, challenges, or other takeaways you have.

Paragraph 1

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 3rd Reflection Paper

Philosophical discourse on well-being stems from the question of what is 'good for' a person. In this paper, I will present the Hedonist theory of well-being, pose an objection, and reply to that objection.

The Hedonist Theory of well-being centers around the sensations of pleasure and pain, claiming that what's good for a person is seeking balance of both sensations across their life (Crisp, 2021). Under this theory, the sensation of pleasure is a measure of well-being, and the sensation of pain is a measure of ill-being. Thus, what feels good (pleasure) is good for a person.

Despite its apparent intuitiveness, this theory has been the subject of harsh criticism since its inception. Early objections rejected pleasure as a measure of, well anything, on the grounds that it belonged to beasts, and humans were above pleasure as a path towards ultimate happiness. Whereas the following objection aims to reveal the complexity of this seemly accessible theory.

Paragraph 2

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 3rd Reflection Paper

One well-known objection against the Hedonist Theory is the Paradox of Hedonism coined by Henry Sidgwich in 1854. It states that the pursuit of pleasure is always fruitless because pleasure is always the result of getting something else. In other words, pleasure is never a direct result but an indirect one. It is elusive. So, how can pleasure be what's good for a person if they can never obtain it?

Paragraph 3

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 3rd Reflection Paper

The Paradox of Hedonism reveals that pleasure is an indirect result of unrelated events, however, pleasure is not the only element in the hedonist theory. If the paradox is correct, it has no bearing in the intent behind the hedonist theory to balance pleasure and pain. At most, it shows that pleasure is impossible to obtain intentionally, but that is just a single lane that has been closed, not the whole road. To put it simply, the methods behind the quest for pleasure and their respective success are unrelated to efforts to balance pleasure and pain. For example, a professional biker falls over and scrapes their leg. The wound burns. The next logical step would be to apply first aid to the wound as soon as possible. However, even if the wound has been nursed, it may still hurt. In hedonist terms, the biker took measures to reduce pain through applying first aid. While pleasure was neither sought nor obtained, pain was diminished but not wholly removed. Thus, while pleasure was neither a direct not indirect result, the effort to control the pain is good for that person.

Conclusion

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 3rd Reflection Paper

It seems that the Paradox of Hedonism may be useful to advance discussions on the nature of pleasure as a measure of well-being. Devising different methods that result in pleasure and/or the reduction of pain is outside the scope of philosophy. However, hedonist theorists may benefit to further consider why pleasure is most successfully obtained through indirect means.

Emotional State

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Emotional State


Theory of Psychological Happiness. As the tin says, the key factor are emotions, or moods. A "good mood" equates to happiness. Duration of a positive emotional state is relevant. This theory is concerned with the health of the mind. More expansive than the Hedonism Theory of Happiness.


Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404082236

References

  • see also:: #
  • source:: # or #

Export

 12th April 2024 at 8:19pm

Export - Code

 12th April 2024 at 7:43pm

Export 2 - Plugin

 12th April 2024 at 8:01pm

Fitting Fulfillment View

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Subjective value + Objective value = Meaning in life.

Susan Wolf's theory combines Happiness and the Meaning of Life. She claims that for one to be happy (in what sense?), they must engage in things they find valuable (worthy; important) on a personal and objective level.


Meta

date:: 2024-02-19
UID:: 202402191252

Reference

Flow

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

The Autotelic experience. The feeling of immersion and a loss of self-perception when doing an activity one that required all of one's focus.


Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404081932

References

Fulfillment View

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Find your passion and pursue it.

Richard Taylor claims that a person's life is meaningful when they engage in things that matter to them (subjective value).


Meta

date:: 2024-02-19
UID:: 202402191252

Reference

Happiness

 12th April 2024 at 4:02pm

up:: + Start Here

What is happiness? For philosophers, such a question that would otherwise be answered to introduce a topic would be concise and simple. There is not such thing here. So while I will not tell you the definition of happiness, I will share what philosophers since Ancient Greece till now have written about the topic.

There are two significant notions about this thing called happiness. One has a physical component, known as Well-being and the other simply called Psychological Happiness. That's pretty much it.

Happiness and The Meaning of Life, in this case the Meaning of Life tend to intersect every so often. This connection occurs more often in Psychological Happiness theories were the proposed notion happiness rests on a "meaningful meaning of one's life or the human species", a can which holds a bunch of worms as you'll quickly see.

Happiness and The Meaning of Life

 12th April 2024 at 4:36pm

up:: + Start Here

Something worth mentioning about the intersection between happiness and the meaning of life is historical sensitivity, for before the Enlightenment, religion had a vast influence on many populations, contrary to today's general agnostic socio-cultural alignment. Mostly because the Church had a lot of political power. Anyways, back to topic!

In the past, pious and god-fearing peasant and aristocratic lives alike, people's lives had meaning because there was a higher who cared. The narrative was anthropocentric. Human were chosen by God. They were special. Their importance was established. Unshakable. Most importantly, it gave meaning to their suffering.

One of the most interesting findings I had in this class was the ripple effect of "killing God," as Nietzsche put it in the Gay Science. Never before has humanity depended on itself to forge its own path, and I cannot express how absolutely terrifying a realization that was. The weight of every choice was crushing, and there was no guide to light the path. There was no right and wrong. There were no absolutes. As a god-killer, it was like being sentenced to drift through a desert like an exile from a home I never truly belonged to. My existence began in the post-Enlightenment era the separation of church and state was an undisputed reality. At the same time, the country I lived during my formative years had a strong Christian background in both language and culture.

I found fault in the Christian moral doctrine and practice, labeling it rigid and restrictive. At worst, I considered those who upheld such doctrine as their personal moral compass to lack moral independence. At best, I understood critical thinking on moral matters is second to peace of mind in other matters like money and family. See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. This course was an opportunity to think deeply about this issue on religion and morality. I find that [[Tolstoy's My Confession|Tolstoy Discussion Notes ]] eloquently discusses this topic. In another work of his, Anna Karenina, his self-insert character also has this internal battle.

In a non-religious perspective, Susan Wolf intersects Happiness and the Meaning of Life in what she calls the Fitting Fulfillment View. It mergers Richard Taylor's Fulfillment View which focuses on what one finds meaningful with her own view that takes into account what's objectively meaningful.

I believe Wolf's perspective is pretty mainstream. As a youth in what's known as the Third World or, as I have been hearing now, the Global South, when I was engaged with the topic of "my future" by adults or teachers, many shared the view that people should find their passion and pursue it. This passion of course, had to be meaningful in the grand scale of things. As a collective culture, it made sense for people to say that. Following that perspective, and learning about the tragedy of anthropocentric climate change, I decided to pursue a career in Environmental Science in the hopes to make people's lives a little bit better.

Hedonism Theory of Happiness

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Theory of Psychological Happiness. Claims that happiness can be obtained through the balance of the sensations of pleasure and pain. Differs from Hedonism Theory of Well-Being as it doesn't aim to push hedonism as a social good, nor does it claim hedonism itself as the only important factor in achieving happiness.


Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404082237

References

  • see also:: #
  • source:: # or #

Hedonism Theory of Well-Being

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Theory of Well-being. Claims that happiness can be obtained through the balance of the sensations of pleasure and pain. Utilitarianism in particular differs from the Hedonism Theory of Happiness as hedonism is considered to be a social good and claims it to be the sole measure of well-being.


Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404082234

References

  • see also:: #
  • source:: # or #

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 1st Reflection Paper - First Half

 12th April 2024 at 4:57pm

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 1st Reflection Paper

Introductory Paragraph

Hope is the fuel of the human spirit. Hope for a better future, hope for a better life. However, what is the form of the dream behind the desire for positive change that drives human migration and social revolutions? The roots of this ideal, as many others, are found in Ancient times. In the Western world, much of that influence stems from Ancient Greece and its colorful cast of thinkers. Among them, Aristoteles thought and wrote extensively on the subject.

Thesis

Aristoteles, in his seminal work Nicomacean Ethics, proposes that the highest good (summun bonum) consists in a good life (eudaimonia) which is the end of all human endeavor. He argues that a good life can be achieved by performing virtuous actions across a lifetime. This moral philosophy is known as Virtue Theory.

Topic Sentence I. On the Goals of the Ends

Main Point

Aristoteles begins by considering the purpose of human activities.

Support

He states that actions are undertaken for a goal. For example, people work to have enough money to pay for essentials and so on. In other words, there is a sequence of goals that guide human actions. Therefore, there is an ultimate goal that guides all human actions (Aristoteles, 2011).

Topic Sentence II. On the Highest Good

Main Point

Seeking the essence of this ultimate goal, or highest good, Aristoteles turns to his peers. There is a uniform agreement that a good life, eudaimonia, is such (Aristoteles, 2011).

Support

Eudaimonia, the good life, for Aristoteles, satisfies three conditions for the highest good. One, a good life is desired for its own sake; the end is itself. Two, all other things are desired for its sake; there are ends that come before it. Three, It's not desired for the sake of something else; there is no other end that follows. With this revelation, Aristoteles follows to discuss the good life.

Topic Sentence III. The Function Argument

Main Point

Aristoteles believes that a good life consists in performing one's function virtuously across a lifetime.

Support

He asserts that the function of a human is to reason, and it has to be done virtuously so that it informs the actions throughout one's life. This implies that, happiness is achieved after death if others conclude so (Aristoteles, 2011). Formed as an argument, Aristoteles says that "If the highest good(x) leads to a good life(y), and performing one's function(z) is the highest good(x), then performing one's function(z) leads to a good life(y)." The rest of the books builds the moral theory based on the concept of virtue. Virtue is the Golden Mean between extremes of deficiency and excess. Aristoteles states that the virtuous action between the extremes can be discovered through reason.

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 1st Reflection Paper - Second Half

 12th April 2024 at 5:04pm

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 1st Reflection Paper

Thesis

Aristoteles' Function Argument limits the value of human life to the capacity to perform a specific function. In this second half, I propose one objection and propose an alternative way to achieve a good life.

Topic Sentence I. Objection to The Function Argument

While I support the intent behind the conclusion--that reasoning ought to inform our actions, I do not consider reasoning to be the function of a human in which their moral value rests.

Main Point

Arguing that the value of a shoemaker rests on the quality of their products diminishes their life.

Support 1.

Work doesn't give value to people. People ought to neither live for work, not work to live. Furthermore, this argument makes "a good life" unavailable to a great deal of people, in particular those with few financial resources. This perspective encourages a thoughts of deficiency and elevates material greed.

Topic Sentence II. Personal Thoughts on A Good Life

Main Point

Thus, I propose that a good life is both an achievable and sustainable goal.

Support 1.

A good life ought to take into account the community. In addition, it cannot be a psychological state, for people are prone to errors in judgement. Through Utilitarianism--a moral theory that aims to bring the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people (Crash Course, 2017)--a good life become an objective judgement that values interpersonal relationships, non-material well-being, and the pleasure and pain of those involved.

Thus, a good life could be one of harmonious relations where people care about each other's well-being and are an active participants in the health of oneself, others, and the community. This can also extend to the well-being of other-than-human members such as pets and local wildlife, and even non-sentient beings like infrastructure.

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 2nd Reflection Paper - First Half

 12th April 2024 at 5:06pm

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 2nd Reflection Paper

Introductory Paragraph

(establish the topic so the reader knows enough to follow the paper.)

"Ever-lasting", "immortalizing", "larger than life", these words evoke a feeling of grandiose. A romantic struggle to rise above the fragility and temporality of human existence to achieve something close to god(dess)hood. The narrative of rising above one's limitations is coated with admiration, hope, and other virtues. At its core it's the promise of immortality, at least among our peers, but a possibility of extending life longer than it's inevitable end nevertheless. Where did this value judgement originate, and what are its downsides?

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

In this paper, I will explain the origin of the idea of the superiority of permanence, describe Nozick's objections against this idea, evaluate his argument, and offer my opinion on Nozick's argument.

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. Permanence as a Quality of a Meaningful Life
Main Point

The superiority of permanence dates back to Ancient Greece. Plato famously argued for entities called Forms which are eternal and unchanging (2022, Kraut).

Support 1.

These Forms were deemed superior to concrete objects because the latter eventually crumble into dust. Forms are another word for ideas, both concrete and abstract, such as a chair, Justice, Love, an apple, and so forth. These forms are immaterial which renders them indestructible. Because of this seemly immortal quality, they are superior to objects that can be sensed, death comes for all living things but the transmission of ideas and beliefs across generations keeps them alive. Since then, this value judgement has been applied to human existence, morphing into the belief that a meaningful life is one that leaves a significant trace in the world.

Topic Sentence II. Against Permanence (1)
Main Point

In the article "Philosophy and the Meaning of Life," Robert Nozick critiques this value judgement.

Support 1.

He hones into what entails to being eternal, becoming an idea; an abstract, unchangeable existence (2010, Benatar). Nozick believes this isn't the trace people want to leave. A trace that reflects the positive qualities of the individual which is tied to something they cared deeply about (2010, Benatar). For Nozick, becoming an idea means taking a snapshot of a person's life and freeze it for all eternity.

Topic Sentence III. Against Permanence (2)
Main Point

One way Nozick develops his objection is by critiquing funeral services.

Support 1.

Specifically, he argues about tombstones and funeral orators. On the former, he describes tombstones are memorials that prevent people from being forgotten. A marked tombstone indicates the life that is not more, an objective symbol of that person's existence. Until that tombstone breaks, crumbles, or becomes illegible, the person's existence can be acknowledged by someone who isn't the deceased, thereby perpetuating their existence by memory alone.

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 2nd Reflection Paper - Second Half

 12th April 2024 at 5:05pm

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 2nd Reflection Paper

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

Nozick's objections to permanence as a quality of a meaningful life misinterpret Plato's concept of Forms.

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. Evaluating Nozick's argument
Main Point

Nozick's main conclusion, that to become eternal a human must become unchangeable, is incorrect.

Support 1.

If equating permeance to an idea, then it is false to say that ideas are unchangeable. Ideas do change. That is how they live on. They are subject to evolution which is linked to their survival. No idea, even the most hateful, hasn't been adapted by people to the times they lived in. It is because ideas are abstract that, just like people, are mutable. What people lose when becoming immortalized isn't the capacity to change but to change in their own terms. By becoming an abstract object, the cede control of this new form their lives has taken to those that remain in this world.

Topic Sentence II. In Support of Nozick's Argument
Main Point

I agree with Nozick's criticism to permanence as the meaning of life, for in the Western sphere, such an endeavor can inflate the ego and encourage a single-minded pursuit of a result that cannot be measured by the individual.

Support 1.

I am critical of such a pursuit of a meaningful life for what people are capable of doing with those that have become an abstract idea. Those that have been immortalized are commonly used for political purposes, some of which cared for only acquiring and holding onto power. By deifying a person, they paint them in a positive light, which by proxy of having them as a symbol, paints a political groups as good, leaving no room for criticism, change, nor improvement.

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 3rd Reflection Paper - Conclusion

 12th April 2024 at 5:21pm

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 3rd Reflection Paper

It seems that the Paradox of Hedonism may be useful to advance discussions on the nature of pleasure as a measure of well-being. Devising different methods that result in pleasure and/or the reduction of pain is outside the scope of philosophy. However, hedonist theorists may benefit to further consider why pleasure is most successfully obtained through indirect means.

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 3rd Reflection Paper - Paragraph 1

 12th April 2024 at 5:19pm

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 3rd Reflection Paper

Philosophical discourse on well-being stems from the question of what is 'good for' a person. In this paper, I will present the Hedonist theory of well-being, pose an objection, and reply to that objection.

The Hedonist Theory of well-being centers around the sensations of pleasure and pain, claiming that what's good for a person is seeking balance of both sensations across their life (Crisp, 2021). Under this theory, the sensation of pleasure is a measure of well-being, and the sensation of pain is a measure of ill-being. Thus, what feels good (pleasure) is good for a person.

Despite its apparent intuitiveness, this theory has been the subject of harsh criticism since its inception. Early objections rejected pleasure as a measure of, well anything, on the grounds that it belonged to beasts, and humans were above pleasure as a path towards ultimate happiness. Whereas the following objection aims to reveal the complexity of this seemly accessible theory.

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 3rd Reflection Paper - Paragraph 2

 12th April 2024 at 5:20pm

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 3rd Reflection Paper

One well-known objection against the Hedonist Theory is the Paradox of Hedonism coined by Henry Sidgwich in 1854. It states that the pursuit of pleasure is always fruitless because pleasure is always the result of getting something else. In other words, pleasure is never a direct result but an indirect one. It is elusive. So, how can pleasure be what's good for a person if they can never obtain it?

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 3rd Reflection Paper - Paragraph 3

 12th April 2024 at 5:20pm

up:: DRAFT_IDH3600 - 3rd Reflection Paper

The Paradox of Hedonism reveals that pleasure is an indirect result of unrelated events, however, pleasure is not the only element in the hedonist theory. If the paradox is correct, it has no bearing in the intent behind the hedonist theory to balance pleasure and pain. At most, it shows that pleasure is impossible to obtain intentionally, but that is just a single lane that has been closed, not the whole road. To put it simply, the methods behind the quest for pleasure and their respective success are unrelated to efforts to balance pleasure and pain. For example, a professional biker falls over and scrapes their leg. The wound burns. The next logical step would be to apply first aid to the wound as soon as possible. However, even if the wound has been nursed, it may still hurt. In hedonist terms, the biker took measures to reduce pain through applying first aid. While pleasure was neither sought nor obtained, pain was diminished but not wholly removed. Thus, while pleasure was neither a direct not indirect result, the effort to control the pain is good for that person.

Landau Discussion Notes

 12th April 2024 at 4:18pm

Prompt: Note the passage and write down any notes you have for discussion. Your notes can be just a few key words, and needn't be a full paragraph.

"Today science is taken to be neither precise, nor certain, nor necessary, nor objective." pg265.

This argument is something that has garnered my interest. Philosophically, it can be argued through epistemological skepticism that because nothing can be truly perceived, conclusions of scientific endeavors are of not use. And science is not about proving stuff but of gathering information. "agreement between scientists" is the closest thing to "truth." However, science is a community effort, built upon generations of human beings. Scientific "truths" of the past such as phrenology or the humors were still acted upon by people during that time. It's the best they had. Likewise, the same could be said with some "truths" now. They are informed by the amount of available evidence. Some postulates, such as anthropogenic-induced global warming have a lot of evidence from many decades to back it up while others not as much. Perhaps there is a factor of miscommunication between scientists and the media and the public that establishes facts that inform actions. Because science is used to inform actions. Politics, economics, social, scientific endeavors has an effect on everyday lives. I do not know where I'm going with this. Perhaps the question I want to address is, should science, if it is a credible source of information, inform human actions regardless of the amount of information available about a topic or situation? The accurate and precision of scientific data is perhaps my greatest concern which the discipline of Epistemology can call into doubt. Furthermore, how should scientists and non-scientist tackle the flaws in scientific publishing which can be manipulated through connections and financial decisions instead of ethics and the public good.

Life Satisfaction

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Theory of Psychological Happiness. States that happiness can be achieved through subjective judgement about one's life. Answers the question, "Are you happy/satisfied with your life?"


Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404082236

References

  • see also:: #
  • source:: # or #

Meaning of Life

 12th April 2024 at 4:03pm

up:: + Start Here

Ido Landau writes that philosophers, when writing about the meaning of life, they focus on the worth, value, or the point in life, or the reason, or purpose of life.

The former can be said to be goal-oriented while the latter theory-centered. As questions, the former can be written as "what am living for?" and the latter, "why am I alive?"

I have decided to label as The Point in Life and the The Purpose of Life respectively.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

 12th April 2024 at 4:04pm

Csikszentmihalyi was noted for his work in the study of happiness and creativity, but is best known as the architect of the notion of  Flow and for his years of research and writing on the topic. Martin Seligman, former president of the American Psychological Association, described Csikszentmihalyi as the world's leading researcher on positive psychology. Csikszentmihalyi once said: "Repression is not the way to virtue. When people restrain themselves out of fear, their lives are by necessity diminished. Only through freely chosen discipline can life be enjoyed and still kept within the bounds of reason." His works are influential and are widely cited. — Wikipedia

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi - If We're So Rich, Why Aren't We Happy.pdf

 

MOCs

 12th April 2024 at 12:05am

Objective List Theory

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Theory of Well-being. States that the things that bring happiness to everyone can be condensed into a itemized list. Unlike the Hedonism Theory of Well-Being and Emotional State, it does not give concern itself with the agents.


Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404082235

References

  • see also:: #
  • source:: # or #

People

 12th April 2024 at 4:40pm

Psychological Happiness

 12th April 2024 at 4:32pm

up:: Happiness

Putting it in other words, psychological happiness states that happiness is a mental state which can be achieved by manipulating the mind. I'm ignorant of the details so I'll skip to the main content.

In this area, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has extensively written about the autotelic experience he calls Flow, having penned a book under the same name. In my own words, Flow is the middle point between a challenging and a mundane task. It's not hard nor easy enough that one becomes frustrated by it's difficulty nor tediousness. Flow experiences are commonly associated with artistic and creative endeavors such as playing an instrument, writing, or painting. If one has enough knowledge and experience in the craft, one can become so immersed in it that they lose perception of time and place. Their self-perception is reduced to the movements that engages them with the art. These experiences aren't limited to actions. They can also include seemly passive activities like listening to music. Flow experiences deserve an inclusive list!

Daniel Gilbert's Stumbling on Happiness deserves a through read and discussion. The chapters read were In the Blind Spot of the Mind's Eye, Paradise Glossed, and Immune to Reality. The book extensively discusses cognitive biases and the ways people's perceptions, judgements, and memories are a severely distorted reality. "In the Blind Spot of the Mind's Eye" that there are falsehoods in a person's recollections of past events which they use to inform their future actions. I would love to go into a ramble about the narratives people create about their lives and how their past gets reconstructed to suit unconscious or semi-conscious needs. On the other hand, "paradise Glossed" focuses on the human brain's tendency to take advantage of the ambiguous nature of experience and interpret it in a way that benefits the person. In opposition, there is also a tendency for people to seek knowledge to validate and protect their beliefs. Fascinating stuff could be discussed. Social circles, internet bubbles, confirmation bias, political polarization, and so many other things these concepts can be applied to by virtue of having lived our lives. Alas, potential is what I'll leave you with.

To end this section, theories of psychological happiness can be classified into Hedonism Theory of Happiness, Emotional State, Life Satisfaction, and the many hybrid theories that combine two or more.

Reflection Papers

 13th April 2024 at 1:49pm

up:: + Start Here

The purpose of the papers was to practice the most important tools in philosophical thinking, building clear arguments and addressing possible counterarguments.

When evaluating philosophical arguments, there are two qualities being examined, Validity and Soundness. The former addresses the argument's internal logic while the latter its authenticity against the real world. As one might expect, soundness is harder to prove and easier to object to than validity, for there are various positions based on different worldviews and multiple contrasting views can be true.

The course opened with a reading of Nicomacean Ethics, focusing on Aristoteles's The Function Argument about "the good life" (Eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία)). This was the topic of the 1st Reflection Paper. The 2nd Reflection Paper was on Robert Nozick's Traces. In these papers, we had to explain the author's argument, pose an objection, and evaluate it. The 3rd Reflection Paper removed the presence of an author, instead letting us choose among the leading theories, explain it, pose an objection, and evaluate it. Compared to the previous papers, it was as if we had no single author to rely on. Training wheels off. Lastly, up to the presentation of this database, the 4th Reflection Paper hasn't been completed. The file is a placeholder.

Richard Taylor

 12th April 2024 at 4:04pm

His best-known book was Metaphysics (1963). Other works included Action and Purpose (1966), Good and Evil (1970) and Virtue Ethics (1991). Professor Taylor was also the editor of The Will to Live: Selected Writings of Arthur Schopenhauer. He was an enthusiastic advocate of virtue ethics. He also wrote influential papers on the meaning of life, which, like Albert Camus, he explored through an examination of the myth of Sisyphus.

Taylor's 1962 essay "Fatalism" was the subject of David Foster Wallace's undergraduate thesis at Amherst College, published in 2011 together with Taylor's essay and contemporary responses under the title Fate, Time, and Language: An Essay on Free Will. — Wikipedia

Robert Nozick

 12th April 2024 at 4:05pm

He is best known for his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), a libertarian answer to John RawlsA Theory of Justice (1971), in which Nozick proposes his minimal state as the only justifiable form of government. His later work, Philosophical Explanations (1981), advanced notable epistemological claims, namely his counterfactual theory of knowledge. It won the Phi Beta Kappa Society's Ralph Waldo Emerson Award the following year.

Nozick's other work involved ethics, decision theoryphilosophy of mindmetaphysics and epistemology. His final work before his death, Invariances (2001), introduced his theory of evolutionary cosmology, by which he argues invariances, and hence objectivity itself, emerged through evolution across possible worlds. — Wikipedia

https://www.its.caltech.edu/~squartz/Nozick.pdf https://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/11/10/robert-nozick-on-the-meaning-of-life/

Robert Nozick - Philosophy and the Meaning of Life.pdf

 

Schopenhaur's On The Suffering of the World Notes

 12th April 2024 at 4:19pm

Schopenhaur's On The Suffering of the World Notes

Soundness

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

up:: #

Considers real life to evaluate the truth of the premises and conclusion.


Meta

date:: 2024-01-27
UID:: 202401271107

Reference

  • see also:: #
  • source:: # or #

St. Thomas Aquinas Discussion Notes

 12th April 2024 at 4:19pm

Prompt: What salient similarities do you see between Thomas Aquinas' ideas on happiness and Aristotle's? What salient differences do you see?

Pre-reading

I believe that Aquina's postulate on happiness parts from Aristoteles'. From the headline of each article, I surmise that Aquinas, because of his Christian perspective, might argue that happiness lies in following God's plan and seeking His favor. That happiness can be achieved in this life through God and that every man desires happiness because every man seeks God's favor. Finally, there is no end to human life because life is eternal. The only difference is that after a person dies, they go to Heaven of Hell and live in eternal bliss or torment for the rest of eternity.

Post-reading

Aquinas disagrees that human actions are deliberate and that they are not born from an end. Firstly, because of reactionary actions. Secondly, because the end, which has not been achieved, is a perceived end, or and imaginary one. Thus, the end in which human act for does not exist.

Furthermore, he insists that happiness equates to pleasure, for there is no other reason to seek pleasure than to be happy; human reason and will is attracted to pleasure; pleasure is good because all desire it and good things can be desired.

Lastly, he argues that humans can attain imperfect happiness through "knowing and loving God." However, he also states that not everyone desires happiness because they may not be able to perceive the "Divine Essence" and people want things they cannot have yet continue to yearn, choosing to be miserable over gratitude for what they already have.

Susan Wolf

 12th April 2024 at 4:05pm

Wolf's work centres on the relation between freedom, morality, happiness and meaningfulness in life. Her book Freedom Within Reason (Oxford, 1990) argues for a view of free will as the ability to do what one reasonably thinks is the right thing. This allows a deterministic universe to nevertheless contain responsibility and the feeling of autonomy for us. Wolf has also written on the topic of moral luck, suggesting a reconciliation between the rationalist and irrationalist positions. She has also published influential work on the demandingness of morality. In this area her paper "Moral Saints" has been particularly influential, attacking the idea that a morally perfect person is actually an attractive ethical ideal. Along with Philippa Foot and Bernard Williams, she has challenged the overriding of morality in practical reasoning.

Wolf has also written extensively on the meaning in human life. She addresses the topic of the meaning of life in her essay: “Happiness and Meaning: Two Aspects of the Good Life”, in which she summaries her view as "Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness… meaning arises when a subject discovers or develops an affinity for one or typically several of the more worthwhile things…". In other words, living a meaningful life consists of one's active engagement with objectively worthwhile things. — Wikipedia

Susan Wolf - Why It Matters.pdf

 

Taylor Discussion Notes

 12th April 2024 at 4:19pm

Prompt: Pose one of objection or challenge to one of Taylor's arguments.

Taylor seems to be saying that people's efforts, while lacking meaning in the grand scheme of things, they are meaningful to our psychology. That is, to prevent or avoid boredom.

I object in the grounds that human motivation may have other roots apart from avoidance of that pain of boredom. It could be goodwill.

The Function Argument

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

up:: #

  1. The highest good for everything consists in performing its function
  2. Humans have a function
  3. Therefore, the good of humans consists in performing their function

Meta

date:: 2024-01-26
UID:: 202401262249

Reference

The Point in Life

 12th April 2024 at 4:33pm

up:: Meaning of Life

"Point" is akin to worth, or value. Things with a point are worthy or valuable. This quality gives them meaning. You can also think of this as the perspective which considers the ultimate objective of human life.

While there are author's that consider the point of life through the lenses of "humanity" or the "human race," due to time constraints, I will solely focus on the point in "individual" human lives. I'm honestly making a disservice sharing a single point of view, for there's truly fascinating thoughts from other authors on both the point of individual lives and the human race.

Richard Taylor, using Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus, claims that the point of our lives is found within us. We give meaning to our lives. This theory makes meaning (point) exclusively psychological and individual. This theory is called the Fulfillment View.

The Purpose of Life

 13th April 2024 at 1:53pm

up:: Meaning of Life

A more theoretical approach to Meaning of Life. The "purpose" explores reasons of life. The "why."

Like, The Point in Life, there will be a single entry. Unlike it, this author discusses humanity "as a whole."

Robert Nozick talks about a lot of things. Here, I want to focus on his perspective on Traces. In the 2nd Reflection Paper, I was fascinated with the notion of humans who have caused a substantial effect in human history and culture become abstract beings. I think it would be interesting to explore in the realm of objectification and idolatry in social and political circles across history. The crux of my objection still stands. A human that has become concept can be manipulated by those who remain, reimagined, to serve their own purposes.

Tolstoy Discussion Notes

 12th April 2024 at 4:19pm

Prompt: Please paste or note the passage and write down any notes you have for discussion. Your notes can be just a few key words, and needn't be a full paragraph.

"Their faith was necessary for them, and that it alone gave them a meaning and possibility of life."

Having lived in a country with a high rate of material poverty and low industrialization, despite the church and state being separate and being independent from colonial powers of previous centuries, the grip of religious faith is strong.

In Ecuador, science and religion have managed to find common ground. Science and Faith have made amends and live in the heads of both wise and common people. All I can share is personal anecdotes, I have not studied this topic in any objective way. I think that Faith gives the common people hope and meaning in their lives. I have witnessed it in the faces of labor workers, people from small towns, and immigrants. Arguing them about it seems like an act of violence, why should I take away something that is so central to their life? That which helps them look forward to the sunrise and face another back-breaking day? For as much as I have read about the spread of the Christian faith in colonized territories, it is also true that people at their weakest need something to hold onto. It cannot be separated from the culture by force. Faith is an amoral concept and act that many people have used to justify acts of harm, religious or otherwise. Thus, something that I ask myself concerning relations with Native peoples and descendants of the colonies is how to make amends? How to foster forgiveness? And how does a society in which groups with different cultural and religious backgrounds can coexist?

The idiosyncrasies of Native peoples in the American continent interest me deeply. I believe that some have a similar answer to the meaning of life which Tolstoy refers to as "the relation of the finite to the infinite." Tolstoy described Christian Catholic and Orthodox religions answers. The alternative which I want to learn more of is one where death isn't a definite end but that which unifies all living things. Human life goes from "phantasmal and destructible" to "infinite." I believe there is a place for science under this worldview for it is a tool to gather information. In particular, the discipline of Ecology strongly supports such a view of a single, unified whole called life in this Earth.

Traces

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Unknown backstory of this concept. The narrative that is still dominant in the West claims that a meaningful (valuable, worthy) life is one that makes a permanent difference, or lives a mark in the world after the person's death.


Meta

date:: 2024-03-30
UID:: 202403301341

Reference

Trisel Discussion Notes

 12th April 2024 at 4:19pm

Prompt: What is one point Trisel makes that you agree with or disagree particularly strongly? Why do you agree or disagree?

I agree with Trisel's rejection of long-lastingness, whether personal, or as a species, to give meaning to our lives. He talks about this is "Life Without Future Generations" (pg. 375). The meaning of life to certain people doesn't have to be goal-oriented; it doesn't have to have an end. It can be something to do throughout their life, like "being kind to my human and other-than-human neighbors" or "raise a child." Meanings like these have no end. They are vague enough to give one's life direction, a reason to get up in the morning and face life. I am of the mind that considering humanity's or the solar system's eventual end and affecting one's notion of the meaning of their lives is a little silly, for it will happen WAY after one's life has ended. It seems impractical. We have the opportunity to affect this world for so many years. The real question to me is, how are we going to spend the time we have in this world?

Validity

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

up:: #

Evaluates the logical conclusion that must follows the premises.


Meta

date:: 2024-01-27
UID:: 202401271106

Reference

Well-being

 12th April 2024 at 4:26pm

up:: Happiness

The starting point, like many discussions in Western Philosophy, began with the Greeks. This Greek was, lo an behold, Aristoteles. His argument for "the good life" (Eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία)) is as alive as a living dead, for the cultural sensitivity in which it was posed is long gone. The Function Argument is key to understand this view, and the subsequent ethical theory build on the seminal Nicomacean Ethics. I strongly oppose Aristoteles argument, for human life must not be reduced to a paying work. At least, not everyone's. Some people find fulfillment in their work, heck, I do, and thus I struggle because I need to keep a firm grasp on the meaning behind it. Furthermore, Aristoteles also claims that the key to a good life lies in reasoning because it's unique to humans which can be objected to in the grounds that it could be that other-than-human cannot be perceived because it's so vastly different from what humans except. A simpler objection would be scientific observations of various species like octopuses, birds, and primates which claim they possess a higher level of intelligence than previously thought.

The following are the main theories of well-being. These are Hedonism Theory of Well-Being, Desire Fulfillment Theory, and Objective List Theory.

Wolf Discussion Notes

 13th April 2024 at 1:33pm

Prompt: What is one passage from Wolf's piece that you find particularly interesting, troublesome, touching, or otherwise remarkable? Paste the passage here and offer a brief comment about what you find in it.

"We have at least much reason to recognize the legitimacy of agents' reasons to pursue the realization of values whose sources lies outside of the agents themselves as we have to recognize the legitimate pursue of the agents' own well-being." (pg.54; Meaning and Morality)

This passage in from a section that discusses meaning and morality. The main idea I got from it is that morality cannot be the absolute standard in which people ought to live by. In other words, between meaningful lives or moral lives, people would incline towards the former. She also argues that morality should take into account people's interests and goals.

References

Susan Wolf - Why It Matters.pdf

Zettels

 12th April 2024 at 4:48pm